The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow close/speedy delete as hoax. The complete and total lack of sources for this author make it clear that this is a hoax. While it's possible that the coverage never made it onto the Internet because her works pre-dated it, it's unlikely that someone nominated for a notable award would lack even an entry on the basic book databases. Since this has been around since 2007, I'll move it to the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia database for the record. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alyse Squillace[edit]

Alyse Squillace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NRV Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Coolabahapple: I am pulling literally nothing on academic databases. This one is screaming non-notable methinks. And I am for keeping anything with a secondary source. HullIntegritytalk / 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I am getting that hoax feeling. Interesting. HullIntegritytalk / 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Alyse Squillace (Search)". trove.nla.gov.au. National Library of Australia. Retrieved 17 February 2015.
  2. ^ "Search Results: "Alyse Squillace"". www.kirkusreviews.com. Kirkus Media. Retrieved 17 February 2015.
  3. ^ "Alyse Squillace". www.worldcat.org. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 17 February 2015.
  4. ^ "Golden Kites Fly High". Publishers Weekly. 243 (13): 45. May 20, 1996 – via ProQuest.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.